Dear all:
taking the items
- Is owl:class different from rdfs:class (relates to level 0 issue)
- Will RDFS be level 0 of OWL? (i.e. is RDFS : Level 1 :: Level 1 : Level 2)
- Do we allow foo:bar owl:subPropertyOf rdf:type??
from our new issues list, I would like to make a (maybe technically _and_
politicall VERY NAIVE !!) suggestion concerning the relation between RDF and
OWL:
If we consider RDF and RDF(S) as level-0 of a Semantic Web language then what
we need from there is a kind of simple ABox (to use an old-fashioned term -
i.e., an RDF graph) and a very restricted form of a TBox (primitive classes,
subclass relationships, and relations). All the features going _beyond_ that in
the current RDF(S) approach have a tendency to be used in a way which can not
be semantically well restricted in RDF(S) - because that is something to be
really done in OWL !! RDF(S) has too much freedom here !
An RDF/RDF(S) "re-defined" or understood in this way as "Semantic Web level-0"
would be a _very valuable_ thing - because it will allow us to treat a vast
amount of what we want to do on the Semantic Web by relatively clear and simple
means.
So, we can think about two alternatives:
A) to ask the RDF Core Group for a discussion about these issues; or
B) define OWL in a way which takes such restrictions on the RDF/RDF(S) level as
_pre-conditions_ for semantical well-foundedness of OWL ontologies (so that
everybody using the Semantic Web with OWL has to follow these restrictions in
order to avoid inconsistencies etc.).
In contrast to "dark triples" etc. this seems to be a way which can easier and
clearer be communicated and explained.
TOO NAIVE??
Ruediger